CHAPTER 2: LITERATURE REVIEW
2.4. The perspective of standard language 33
2.4.1. Language Planning 33
language podium which also became the medium of instruction in school and of a formal discussion. It also became, in time, the language of news bulletins on the news media. Williams (2015:26) also notes that “there were two varieties of dialects that most people had, that of the street and that of the chapels or pulpit. Given that the religious institutions drew people together across social class these were not class varieties but status group varieties”.
This was unavoidable assuming that Welsh was omitted from the language agencies during the language processes. However, Williams (2015) note that varieties of language that had more firm stability in the social contexts and may have been considered to have been updated to the official status.
2.4 The perspective of a standard language
2.4.1 Language Planning
As noted that the language phenomenon has been researched for some years, language planning phenomenon is no exception (Zsgisa, Boyer & Kramer, 2014; Bulot
& Blanchet, 2015; Suso, 2015). Nikolovski (2015) argues that language planning encompasses changes in the language, changes of the relations among languages as well as humans acting upon languages and their interrelations. Furthermore, Nikolovski (2015:67) states that “planning consists of determining precise objectives and utilization of means and methods for their realization by the set deadline”. The expression of “language planning places language next to things apt to be planned, managed or navigated through”. This study seeks to revisit the concept of language planning, thus allowing the process of re-standardisation of Sepedi.
Nikolovski (2015:67) points out that standardizing is a socio-economic phenomenon that entails the design or a “search for orthographic and grammar rule common for all the users of a language, tending to expand its use in as many areas of human life as possible. Standardisation of a specific language may be realised by acting upon several different fields of the language”. Thus, language standardisation can be implemented in the field of lexicality, by introducing new words borrowed from the
dialects of the language or other languages, by borrowing or conveying lexical content from one or more fields of human activities, constructing and coining new words Nikolovski (2015:5). Hill (2010:103) also points out that language planning is a
“concept that has been central to South African language policy debates”. Language emerges within the context of a growing sociolinguistics orientation to the general study of languages in contact.
Three of the concepts in language planning is status planning, corpus planning and acquisition planning. Status planning involves the external or functional development of a language in society while corpus planning is defined as the internal development of a language (grammar, lexicon), the acquisition planning which deals with promoting and spreading language learning.
The Corpus planning stage plays a significant role in this present study as a study seeks to explore the influence of a dialect Khelobedu on a standard Sepedi language.
In an ordinary case, Khelobedu and the standard Sepedi have different lexical units (Mojela, 2008; Mohale, 2014) hence there was an exclusion of Khelobedu in the language standardisation process of Sepedi. Lewis & Henson (2013) defines language planning as the overt, directed, purposeful language change brought about to solve some identified problems. This definition is in line with Mesthrie’s (2009:375) definition
“that language planning regards all mindful efforts that intend to change the language behaviour of a speech community”.
2.4.2. Processes of Language Standardisation
Language Planning concepts is a concept that contributes tensely to the processes of language standardisation (Zaidi, 2013; Lewis & Henson, 2013). Haugen (2013) suggested, “that there are four stages which are selection, codification, implementation and elaboration of function”. Echoing this, Nicolle (2017) also identifies four stages of
“language planning, status planning, corpus planning, acquisition planning and prestige planning”. Nicolle (2017:12) argues that these four stages of language planning do not exist in isolation. Activities aimed at changing the functions of language (status planning) often require changes in the form or structure of the language (corpus planning), and may also involve education and training (acquisition planning) status planning activities will only succeed if positive attitudes towards the
language are adopted (through prestige planning) by both the speakers of the language and others in the wider society such as government officials, teachers and pastors. Mesthrie (2009: 375-380) suggests:
*Selection
Mesthrie (2009:375) argued that “language planning can be understood as a normative response to linguistic diversity, that chooses certain linguistic forms of language varieties over others, and promote them as being ‘the norm’ is the basis of most language planning activities”. Furthermore, the selection process designates the method of selecting a certain language variety to be used for a certain purpose in society. At the national level, this includes the choice of a national or official language;
at the local level, this includes choosing which dialect of a language to use as the medium of instruction in a Mother Tongue education programme.
*Codification
Having selected a diversity for some of the functions, they are then codified concerning the written form (graphitization), its grammar (grammatication) and its vocabulary.
Mesthrie (2009:375) points out that graphization is where a variety of “language is being used in a written form for the first time”, the development of orthography is a crucial activity. The orthography must adequately represent the structure of the language (including its phonology if an alphabetic or syllabic system is chosen), it must be easy to read and write, and must be acceptable to the community. For these reasons, orthography should involve collaboration between linguists, literacy specialists, and community representatives.
Grammatication: this is the process where codifying the rules of the grammar typically occurs in the case of national languages and languages which are learned as a second language, but this activity does not always happen with languages which are only used in a local context by mother-tongue speakers.
Lexicalisation which is the third stage under codification in a situation where the language is being promoted to an official function of some kind lexicalisation often involves making decisions about which words are authentic and which are loanwords.
This is particularly the case where the language is associated with a particular ethnic or political identity. An example of a product of lexicalisation is a dictionary.
Implementation is another stage that is involved in the codification process, it typically involves material production in the codified language variety. This is usually done by the state in the case of national languages, and by a combination of local communities and government organisation in the case of local languages. Implementation can also comprise happenings such as language festivals and other cultural events where the language is used, incentives ad laws requiring the use of the language in certain situations.
Lastly, elaboration: this process involves “all aspects of corpus planning which the language is developed to meet the needs of modern society” (Mesthrie, 2009:376).
One important aspect is the development of new vocabulary, in particular terms for technological items such as mobile phones and computers. New words may already be in use, either borrowing from another language, extension of the meaning of existing words.
Lafon et al (2005:15) note that several remarks can be made regarding the language standardisation procedures in the native languages in South Africa:
(a) “The primary phase in the standardisation of the Bantu languages versus the selection and determination of (phonetic, morphological, syntactic, lexical; spelling and writing) norms (generally referred to as corpus planning) seems to be well underway, being handled by the National Language Bodies under the guidance of PanSALB.
Particular attention is also being paid to the development of technical terminology and registers”.
(b) “There are, however, several problems. Particularly notable is the continued tension between rural and urban varieties. In discussing this matter, the 2005 workshop proposed that an “inclusive” approach, which was also called a “polycentric approach”, be followed, that is, that linguistic features from more than one constituting dialect should be recognised as standard norms. It was argued that it was important that the selection and determination of norms do not alienate constituent communities.
The notion of a standard language as exhibiting flexible stability was proposed, i.e.
that standard languages allow for some degree of variation/linguistic pluralism. A significant corollary to this approach is that urban dialects, such as the Zulu of Soweto (so-called Gauteng Zulu), be recognised and accepted as varieties with their integrity”.
(c) “As regards the other phases in the language standardisation process, several tasks still require serious attention. The Constitutional language stipulations and the language policies at various levels and domains of government and numerous institutions (such as universities) have established the status of the Bantu languages;
however, as Lafon demonstrates: these languages do not yet have the prescribed status in language policy practice, for example as languages of study in the South African school system. Similarly, regarding the use of these languages, a large amount of developmental work also needs to be done.
(d) “Important phases in the development of the Bantu languages as fully-fledged standard languages are the process of promoting their acceptance by the community, developing speakers’ proficiency in them (typically through the formal education system), and encouraging their wide-spread usage”.
“These phases are very crucial to the language standardisation in the South African context. Noteworthy is that they should be carried out by consultations and participatory engagement among the stakeholders.
(e) “Linked directly to the previous matter, is, of course, the larger problem, namely addressing the negative attitudes to the Bantu languages. Important in this regard is establishing support for the language standardisation process among the intellectual leaders of speech communities: teachers, church leaders, community leaders, writers, politicians, etc. Changing negative attitudes to the Bantu languages in South Africa is a very complicated phenomenon”.
Kamwangamalu (2010:361) examined the “language planning situation in South Africa, where language has been instrumental in the country’s transition from colonialism to apartheid to democracy. In particular, it addresses, diachronically and synchronically, the issues of language spread and use, language policy and planning,
and language maintenance and shifts”. Kamwangamalu (2010:362) looked at
“language policy and planning with a focus on South Africa’s new language policy and on attempts being made to implement it”. The results showed that “there is a mismatch between language policy and language practices, with the former promoting additive multilingualism, and the latter showing a trend towards unilingualism in English virtually all the higher domains of language use”. The suggestions of this inclination for the existing language policy and language preservation and scrutiny were debated concerning the indigenous languages of South Africa.
Whereas Alexander (2004:113) argues that “there is no political neutral theory of language planning, even though the power elites tend only to examine language policy under conditions of crisis. In South Africa, language planning was associated with the discredited racist social engineering of the apartheid era, especially because of the deleterious effects of Bantu education and because of the stigma of collaboration that came to be attached to the Bantu language boards”. Alexander (2004:113) points out that a few “attempts have been made from time to time to put forward ideologically and politically neutral theories of language planning. In the real world language planning, even that which denies that it is language planning serves specific ideological and political ends”.
Thus, Lo Bianco (2008:25) argues that “language policy is not some de-contextualised set of protocols that can be transported from context to context, setting, and applied by disinterested technicians but the historical settings of culture, legal and political environment, ethnic relations, socio-legal parameters of policymaking and memory influence not only what is possible in any specific setting but also serve to shape its form and its content”.
2.5. Language ideologies
Language ideologies have been researched for several years (Mliroy, 2018; Chen, 2018; Rosa, 2016; Reyes, 2011).
Wolff (2017:4) argues that “Africa is highly ideologised in terms of two antagonistic positions. Facing two extreme ideological positions, namely the 19th century European nation state-ideology vs 20th/21st century African Renaissance-ideology”. Language developers and decision-makers in Africa are trapped in an intricate predicament of being wedged among ideologies.
Wolff (2017:4) postulates that the “academic and political discourse on language policies and language use in post-colonial Africa tends to be highly ideologised and seems to be trapped amongst a rock and a hard place. The debate suffers from a mismatch between the multilingual realities in the African post-colonies and the prevailing political ideology”.
Makoe & McKinney (2014) discuss a different ideology of language where they state that “existing research on language on South Africa schooling frequently draws attention to the problematic hegemony of English and the lack of access to education in the home language of the majority of learners, often drawing on the metaphor of a gap or a disjuncture between post-apartheid Language-in-Education policy (LiEP) and its implementation”.
In this work, Makoe & McKinney (2014:80) maintain that the concept of the opening complicates the substantial endurances among apartheid and the “post-apartheid language in education policy, as well as notions of what language is and what amounts as linguistic competence and capital”. Language ideologies and the expansive process of power assist in the diagnostic framework to mark the logic of the links amongst apartheid and the contemporary language policies and classroom ideologies. Makoe
& McKinney (2014), Woolrad & Schieffelin (1994) postulate that language ideologies
“refer to the sets of beliefs, values and cultural frames that continually circulate in society, informing how language is conceptualised and represented as well as how it is used”.
The conception of language ideologies enables us to afford substitute interpretation of the South African LiEP and its execution in schools. Such principles are erected through discourse, that is, systems of power/knowledge. This is also seen in Makoni
(1999:289) that the connections among “apartheid linguistic production, where the language was used as a rift and the instruction plan, in official preserving of a particular list of 11 official languages in the post-apartheid constitution”.
Layton (2014:53) work was inspired by the “philosophy of language and the bearing that acuity and discourse about languages have on various language users in the classroom”. The work lures on the philosophy of considerate of Bourdieu’s linguistic capital, as well as language ideology and critical discourse analysis. Layton (2014:53) argues that “there is a link between the micro-level and macro-level discourse that circulates a specific type of language ideology that affects the positioning of diverse language users in the classroom”. Layton (2014:53) study “suggests that the discourse of language as distinct and restricted entities that must endure uncontaminated limit the teaching of language and literacy, and constrain the student from using their full linguistic collection in the classroom, reducing students to incomplete monolingual speakers”.
Wolff (2017:5) points out that the existing conventional “discourse on growth and nation-building is based on ideological locations which promote monolingualism”. Most African countries, like South Africa which is a country that has 11 official languages and many dialects which form part of these ideologies (Mohale, 1996). Also, “research on language and literacy practices in a multilingual classroom setting draws attention to the highly productive use of mixed codes to facilitate access to the curriculum”.
Milroy (2001:535) “explores the effects of the standard language ideology on attitudes on non-linguists and of language specialists and considers how far linguists themselves have been affected by this ideology”.
As noted, various ideologies are underpinned by the sociolinguists' phenomenon, however, this study seeks to explore the ideology of how a dialect influences the standard language in the students’ writing in the classroom context.
2.6 Standard language and impurities
Language impurities is a concept that has been researched quite intensely by many linguists (Nkosi, 2014; Balfour, 2010; Barnes, 2004; Blommaert, 2010, Fouche, 2009;
Thomas, 1991; Brunstad, 2003). Before discussing language and its impurities, it will be important to also discuss what is meant by language purity. The Virtual University of Pakistan notes that language is a technique of social communication, both spoken or written, containing the practice of words in an organised and conservative way;
language is a technique of countenance or communication.
Mohale (2014) note that many dialects took part in contributing to the standardised form of Sepedi. Furthermore, many languages are created based on language interaction and language mingling. The notion of pure and impure language as in linguistic purism refers to an intellectual concept. Brunstad (2003) further notes that purism has worked as a philosophy for eliminating unsolicited rudiments from the language and revitalising internal rudiments. In that way, purism has given a foundation for describing language limitations and language standards, mainly for official languages. Langer & Nesse (2012:607) also notes that “linguistic purism is one of the most conspicuous expanses of historic sociolinguistics subsequently contracts with what speakers think of language use”. Furthermore, Langer Nesse (2012:607) argues that “purism is connected to numerous vital features of historical linguistics, counting the route of standardising languages, the use of language as a construction block in the formation of countries, and the stigmatisation of language diversities or values as objectionable, or even a hazard to one’s distinctiveness”.
Earlier studies such as that of Jernudd & Shapiro (2011:249) note that “language is the ambience of the nation as the manifestation of its inborn values and existing modus. So we can feel the breath of other people through verbal contact”. “This compels the contemporary generation to further refine the lingual asset. Thus Purism in language may be defined in terms of the opening and closure of sources for enrichment”. Jernudd & Shapiro (2011) continue to note that “purism is the opening of the native sources and closure of the non-native sources”. Though the instinctive foundations are exposed broadly, the dialectical and literary causes remain otherwise.
Ndimande-Hlongwa, Balfour, Mkhize & Engelbrecht (2010:7) explores the
“inconsistencies concerning the clarification also submission of orthographical rules by three isiZulu newspapers representing the print media”. The discrepancies in the submission of orthographical instructions are also pragmatic in the isiZulu news programme of the South African Broadcasting Corporation. In this article,
NdimandeHlongwa et.al (2010:80) argued that three newspapers are uneven in the submission of some of the orthographic instructions in isiZulu which is an alarm since isiZulu is a formal language and formal languages consume philosophies of what is accurate and improper conferring to the isiZulu National Language Board (NLB).
2.6.1 Linguistic purism
Busse (2018) states that linguistic purism refers to an activity that aims at cleansing a language from unwanted influences. However, what counts as an ‘unwanted influence’
usually rests on certain social ideals that are not necessarily shared by all members of society. Busse (2018) argues that these ideals may be oriented towards a nostalgic conception of the past, towards certain ethnographic varieties, or the language usage of the conceived social elite.
Kotze & Kirsten (2016:87) afford a methodical scholarship of the degree and effect of the philosophy of purism in Afrikaans historical linguistics. The study discusses “the method of a critical discourse analysis that designates by what means nationalistic, purist ideology of Apartheid was transferred implicitly and explicitly to the linguistic description of the history of Afrikaans”. This study engaged in an argument of purism explicitly inherited and wholesome purism and the character of nationalism in linguistic purism.
In standard meanings, linguistic purism is viewed as a language planning philosophy relating the struggle to external rudiments. Langer & Nesse (2012:608) notes that
“language purism is one of the most noticeable areas of historical sociolinguistics since it very publicly deals with what speakers think of particular language use”. It traces the turf of traditional linguistics which its main focus is the significance of the places of great importance on the sensitivity of language diversities, as opposed to just the importance of sociology perspective.
2.7 Language change
Various studies have focused on language change in sociolinguistics (Hock &Joseph, 2009; Mesthrie, Swann, Deumert and Leap, 2000; Blommaert, 2008). Guy (1990) argues that countless studies of linguistic change consume strained dissimilarities among conflicting forms of variation. Instances are seen in the Neogrammarian